Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research and review articles as an authoritative source of knowledge in postharvest technology and food biotechnology, with a particular emphasis on Indonesian foods and related regions. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all necessary actions against publication malpractice. This statement explains the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher (Research Group for Postharvest Technology and Biotechnology, Respobio, on behalf of Hasanuddin University). This statement is prepared in accordance with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and citation manipulation in conducting, evaluating, or reporting research, as well as in preparing and submitting manuscripts. When misconduct or serious irregularities are suspected in a submitted or published article, the Editors have a responsibility to protect the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board of Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology will follow COPE guidance and best practices to manage concerns in a fair, confidential, and evidence-based manner. A manuscript found to involve misconduct will be rejected. If misconduct is confirmed after publication, the journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, and any notice will be clearly linked to the original article.

The initial assessment includes (1) verifying whether the allegation is credible and aligns with the definition of research misconduct, and (2) identifying any potential conflicts of interest related to the complainant or the parties involved.

When further assessment is warranted, the journal will contact the corresponding author (on behalf of all co-authors) and request a detailed written explanation, along with supporting data or documentation where appropriate. The Editors may seek additional evaluation from independent experts (e.g., methodological or statistical reviewers) to assist in assessing the case.

If the concern appears to result from honest error or unclear reporting rather than deliberate misconduct, the journal may resolve the matter through clarifications, editorial correspondence, and/or publication of a correction notice. For more serious cases, the journal may request or rely on a formal investigation conducted by the authors’ institution(s) or relevant authorities.

Respobio Journal, authors, and institutions share a common responsibility to ensure the reliability of the scientific literature. By responding promptly and appropriately to allegations of misconduct and taking necessary actions such as corrections or retractions the journal aims to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record.

Duties of Reviewers

• Role in Editorial Decisions
  Peer review supports the Editors in making fair publication decisions and helps authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific contribution of their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

• Confidentiality
  Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents. Manuscript content must not be shared, discussed, or distributed to others unless explicitly authorized by the Editor.

• Scholarly Integrity and Acknowledgement of Sources
  Reviewers should check whether relevant literature and data sources have been properly cited and may suggest important references that are missing. If reviewers identify potential ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, duplicate submission, data irregularities, or substantial similarity to previously published work—they should promptly inform the Editor. Reviewers must keep such concerns confidential and should not conduct independent investigations unless requested by the journal.

• Objectivity and Constructive Review
  Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and clearly reasoned. Reviewers should provide respectful, constructive comments that help authors improve the manuscript. Reviewers should distinguish between recommendations that are essential to support the manuscript’s main claims and those that are optional improvements that may strengthen the work.

• Competing Interests and Use of Privileged Information
  Any ideas or information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage and must remain confidential. Reviewers should decline review assignments where any conflict of interest exists due to competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations related to the manuscript. If a reviewer suspects the identity of the author(s) and believes it creates a potential conflict, the reviewer should inform the Editor.

• Promptness
  Reviewers are expected to respond within a reasonable timeframe. A reviewer should accept an invitation only if they can submit the review within the requested or mutually agreed deadline. If additional time is needed, reviewers should notify the Editor promptly to request an extension. If a timely review is not possible, reviewers should inform the Editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned to another reviewer.

Duties of Editor

• Editorial Decisions
  Editors are responsible for making publication decisions—acceptance, revision, or rejection—based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, clarity, and relevance, as informed by peer-review reports. These decisions are guided by the journal’s editorial policies and applicable legal and ethical standards (e.g., libel, copyright, plagiarism). Editors may consult with members of the Editorial Board or reviewers and are accountable for the quality and integrity of all content published.

• Peer-Review Management
  Editors ensure that each submission undergoes an initial assessment for scope, originality, and ethical compliance, followed by a fair and rigorous peer-review process where appropriate. Suitable reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest. The journal’s peer-review procedures are clearly described to authors.

• Fairness and Editorial Independence
  Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on intellectual content and scientific quality, without discrimination based on authors’ personal characteristics or affiliations. Editorial decisions are made independently, free from undue influence, to uphold fairness and integrity.

• Confidentiality
  Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related communications. They should assess and address any issues related to data protection and, where applicable, ensure that appropriate informed consent and permissions for publication are in place.

• Conflicts of Interest
  Editors must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal research without the authors’ explicit consent and must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have any competing interests.

Duties of Authors

• Reporting Standards
  Authors must present an accurate, transparent, and objective report of the research performed and its significance. Results should be reported honestly, without fabrication, falsification, selective reporting, or inappropriate data manipulation. Manuscripts should include sufficient methodological detail and appropriate references to allow others to understand and, where relevant, replicate the work. Deliberately misleading statements are considered unethical.

• Data Availability, Retention, and Reproducibility
  Authors may be requested to provide raw data or supporting materials for editorial assessment and should be prepared to share data publicly when feasible and in line with ethical/legal constraints. Authors are expected to retain research data for a reasonable period after publication and ensure that the findings can be reproduced based on the reported methods and data.

• Originality and Plagiarism
  Submissions must be the authors’ original work. Proper citation is required for all sources, ideas, methods, and text drawn from other publications. Any verbatim text must be clearly indicated (e.g., quotation marks) with appropriate attribution. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.

• Redundant, Duplicate, or Concurrent Submission
  Manuscripts should not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time unless explicitly agreed by the editors. Authors should not publish substantially similar work in multiple outlets without clear justification and full disclosure. Where multiple papers arise from one research project, the relationship between the papers must be clearly stated and the primary publication cited.

• Acknowledgement of Sources
  All data sources, funding support, and contributions from others must be appropriately acknowledged. Authors should cite relevant literature that significantly influenced the study, including foundational research and key prior findings.

• Authorship and Contributions
  Authorship should reflect significant intellectual contribution to the study (e.g., conception, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and/or drafting and critical revision). Individuals who contributed substantially should be listed as authors; those with more limited contributions should be recognized in acknowledgements. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agree to its submission.

• Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure
  Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could be perceived to influence the research or its interpretation. All sources of funding or material support should be clearly stated in the manuscript.

• Corrections of Errors After Publication
  If authors discover a major error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work, they must promptly inform the Editor and cooperate to correct the record through a correction, retraction, or other appropriate action.

• Ethical Compliance and Safety (Human/Animal Subjects & Hazards)
  If the research involves humans, animals, or sensitive materials, authors must confirm compliance with applicable ethical standards and approvals. Any unusual hazards associated with chemicals, procedures, or equipment must be clearly identified, and appropriate safety measures should be described.

Ethical Oversight

If a study involves chemicals, human participants, animals, procedures, or equipment with unusual or significant hazards, authors must clearly describe these aspects in the manuscript and demonstrate compliance with applicable ethical standards for research involving humans and animals; where required, authors must provide evidence of ethical approval or legal clearance from an appropriate institutional or regulatory body, and for research involving confidential or proprietary data (including business or marketing information), authors must justify the use of such data and explain how confidentiality and data security are maintained, including whether any information is withheld to protect sensitive content.

Complaints and Appeals

Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology has a clear procedure for handling complaints and appeals related to the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, reviewers, or the Publisher. Complaints will be reviewed objectively and communicated to the relevant party/parties in accordance with the nature of the case. The scope of complaints includes issues related to the journal’s publishing process, such as the editorial workflow, suspected citation manipulation, unfair editorial or reviewer practices, peer-review manipulation, and other ethical concerns. All cases will be handled in line with COPE guidelines and best practices.

Complaints and appeals should be submitted by email to: respobio@jurnal.unhas.ac.id

Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

Respobio Journal policy about intellectual property or copyright is declared here.

Plagiarism Screening Policy

Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology will promptly investigate and may reject any manuscript found to involve plagiarism or self-plagiarism. The Editorial Board ensures that all accepted manuscripts undergo similarity checking and that each published article does not exceed a 20% similarity score. The plagiarism screening policy is described here.

Peer-Review Policy

The peer-review process evaluates manuscripts based on originality, objectivity, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, clarity of conclusions, and relevance of references. Reviewers’ comments are communicated to the corresponding author for revision and response. The Editorial Board assesses the reviewers’ recommendations and issues the final decision on the manuscript. The peer-review process and policy are described here.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology welcomes post-publication discussions and corrections from readers regarding published articles. Readers who wish to submit comments, discussions, or correction requests should contact the Editor-in-Chief via email, clearly describing the issue and providing supporting information. If the submission is accepted by the Editor-in-Chief, the discussion and/or correction will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. The corresponding author(s) of the original article may submit a response to the Editor-in-Chief, and the journal may publish this response as a Reply to the Letter to the Editor.

Article Withdrawal Policy

Standards and procedures for handling article withdrawal, retraction, removal, and replacement in Respobio Journal: Postharvest Technology and Food Biotechnology are described in the journal’s Article Withdrawal Policy, which can be found here.